DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 23 December 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0144665) in view of Grelaud, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0135033, referred to as “The Grelaud application”).
For claim 1, Ohashi teaches a controller (20) for a rider-assistance system (1), the controller (20) configured to: acquire surrounding environment information of an own vehicle (100) during travel of the own vehicle (100) (see Fig. 1, #4, paras. 0085, 0087); and execute speed control operation of the own vehicle (100) on the basis of the surrounding environment information acquired by the controller (20) (see paras. 0085, 0087), and further comprising: determine a presence or absence of necessity to stop the own vehicle (100) or make the own vehicle (100) crawl during the travel of the own vehicle (100) (see paras. 0026, 0103, 0104), wherein the controller executes first speed control operation as the speed control operation to adjust a positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and another vehicle (200) traveling around the own vehicle (100) (see paras. 0132-0133, Fig. 19). Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the rest of the limitation. A teaching from the Grelaud publication discloses a disabled state of a group travel mode as a mode in which plural motorcycles (300) including the own vehicle (100) travel in a group (see para. 0020). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Ohashi to include the teaching of the Grelaud publication based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve how it is ascertained if the two-wheeled motor vehicle is on a group ride with at least one other two-wheeled motor vehicle, and in the event of a group ride, the speed-control or proximity-control system is switched to a special operating mode (see para. 0002).
Continuing with the claim, Ohashi further teaches executes first automatic control operation as control operation to cause the own vehicle (100) to automatically stop or to automatically become the crawl in the case where the controller determines the presence of the necessity during execution of the first speed control operation (see para. 0099), executes second speed control operation as the speed control operation to adjust the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the motorcycle (300), which is other than the own vehicle (100), of the plural motorcycles (300) traveling in the group (see paras. 0085, 0087). The Grelaud publication further teaches to control speed in an enabled state of the group travel mode (see paras. 0012, 0021). Ohashi further teaches executes second automatic control operation as the control operation to cause the own vehicle (100) to automatically stop or to automatically become the crawl in the case where the controller (20) determines the presence of the necessity during execution of the second speed control operation (see paras. 0026, 0103, 0099), and changes behavior of the own vehicle (100) between the first automatic control operation and the second automatic control operation (see para. 0009).
With reference to claim 9, Ohashi further teaches wherein the controller (20) adjusts the positional relationship on the basis of the surrounding environment information of a first range in surroundings of the own vehicle (100) in the second speed control operation (see paras. 0009-0012), which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity, and adjusts the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) on the basis of the surrounding environment information of a second range (see paras. 0009-0012), which differs from the first range, in the surroundings of the own vehicle (100) in the second automatic control operation (see paras. 0009-0012, 0014).
Referring to claim 10, Ohashi further discloses wherein the controller (20) changes an allowable value of a speed change state amount, which is generated to the own vehicle (100) (see paras. 0092, 0014), between the second automatic control operation and each or one of the first automatic control operation and the second speed control operation (see paras. 0092, 0014), which is executed when the controller determines the absence of the necessity (see para. 0092).
Regarding claim 11, Ohashi further discloses wherein the controller (20) determines the presence or the absence of the necessity on the basis of output of a vehicle behavior sensor (12) that is mounted to the own vehicle (100) (see para. 0085).
Pertaining to claim 12, Ohashi further teaches determines the presence or the absence of the necessity on the basis of output of a surrounding environment sensor (11) that is mounted to the own vehicle (100) (see para. 0085).
For claim 13, Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V) is considered well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ohashi to include the claimed limitation based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve how to warn the driver when the forward intervehicular distance becomes smaller than a predetermined value relative to the preceding vehicle having a side intervehicular distance smaller than a predetermined value (see para. 0015).
With reference to claim 14, Ohashi further teaches the controller (20) determines the presence or the absence of the necessity on the basis of map information (see para. 0091).
Claim 15 is interpreted to contain substantially similar subject matter and elements as those defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claim 1.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0144665) and Grelaud, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0135033, referred to as “The Grelaud application”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grelaud, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,151,708), referred to as “The Grelaud patent”).
With reference to claim 2, Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from the Grelaud patent discloses wherein in the second automatic control operation, the controller 20 adjusts the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) that travels ahead of the own vehicle (100) (see col. 1:42-53). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Ohashi to include the teaching of the Grelaud patent based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve the event that the lateral offset of the second single-track motor vehicle exceeds a predefined second threshold value and the lateral offset of the third single-track motor vehicle falls below a predefined third threshold value, the third single-track motor vehicle is selected as the target object (see col. 1:60-67).
For claim 3, Ohashi further discloses wherein in the controller adjusts a positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the another vehicle (200) traveling ahead of the own vehicle (100) in the first automatic control operation (see para. 0099). The Grelaud publication teaches makes the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) in an advancing direction, which is adjusted in the second automatic control operation, have an approaching tendency (see paras. 0012, 0021). Ohashi further teaches when compared to the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the another vehicle (200) in the advancing direction, which is adjusted in the first automatic control operation (see paras. 0114, 0099).
Pertaining to claim 4, Ohashi further teaches wherein in the controller changes the other motorcycle (300) as a target vehicle for adjustment of the positional relationship between the second speed control operation (see paras. 0009-0012, 0014), which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity, and the second automatic control operation (see paras. 0096, changes target, see also paras. 0009-0012, 0014).
With regards to claim 5, the Grelaud patent further discloses wherein in the second automatic control operation, the controller (20) adjusts the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) that travels on a side of the own vehicle (100) (see col. 1:42-2:21).
For claim 6, the Grelaud publication teaches determining group riding (see para. 0022). Ohashi further discloses wherein the controller prohibits the own vehicle (100) from overtaking the other motorcycle (300) or traveling side by side with the other motorcycle (300) in the second speed control operation (see para. 0011) which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity (see para. 0092); the Grelaud patent further teaches allows the own vehicle (100) to overtake the other motorcycle (300) or travel side by side with the other motorcycle (300) in the second automatic control operation (see col. 1:42-2:21).
For claim 7, the Grelaud publication teaches wherein the controller makes the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) in an advancing direction, which is adjusted in the second automatic control operation, have an approaching tendency (see paras. 0012, 0021). Ohashi further teaches a distance when compared to the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other vehicle (300) in the advancing direction, which is adjusted in the second speed control operation executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity (see paras. 0114, 0099), while the Grelaud publication teaches a group ride determination (see paras. 0009-0012).
With regards to claim 4, Ohashi further teaches wherein in the controller changes the other motorcycle (300) as a target vehicle for adjustment of the positional relationship between the second speed control operation (see paras. 0009-0012, 0014), which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity, and the second automatic control operation (see paras. 0096, changes target, see also paras. 0009-0012, 0014).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights